Yes, the goal of keeping it simple seems to have been lost over the years.
That and it seems the system designers have forgotten the greatest single
reason for devices such as PCs and virtually all modern appliances,
"convenience."
We don't purchase a PC to work on it, we purchase a PC to work for us. If a
user wishes to work on it, there are plenty of options for the "backyard
mechanic" and he certainly can purchase a PC for whatever reason. However,
the primary reason these devices exist is to provide us with a convenience
and perform services for us.
That said, much as I agree with you about what should be done with regard to
errors, I think it is important to understand how difficult what you suggest
might be to put in place. First, there are often many things that can lead
to the same generic error. One of the reasons for the error reports is to
build a database of known issues and what applications, drivers, DLLs, etc.
might be involved. One, this gives Microsoft information about what it
needs to address and two, it alerts them to problem software or hardware.
And, therein lies the tail of the dog. Not to be argumentative and please
don't take anything I'm saying as disagreement with your primary premise as
I agree, what you say is how it should be. However, because the platform is
not generic and the multitude of hardware and software variations, heck an
OEM driver can differ from a retail driver for what is otherwise the same
device, the whole idea becomes extremely problematic.
When people talk about a Mac not having the same types of conflicts as the
PC and ask why the PC cannot match a Mac for stability they are speaking
either from ignorance or they are trolls looking to stir up an argument in
newsgroups such as these. The Mac has its legendary stability because Apple
keeps tight control over the platform. It's easier to write help files,
easier to write specific references with regard to errors, it's easier to
create drivers, write applications and maintain overall system integrity.
With a PC, I'm amazed sometimes that it works at all given all the different
hardware, software, chipsets, motherboards and on and on. That doesn't mean
I think the error reference handling for users cannot be improved, I'm just
stating the reasons why it's so difficult. Further, these are not closed
systems and when they attempted to sell such systems that could not be
upgraded, users rebelled and wouldn't buy them.
Then, there's the cost/price benefit which in and of itself has exacerbated
the very issues of which you speak. While manufacturer's have used all
sorts of schemes to lower their costs, everything from not supplying the
user with a CD of the OS to using cheap parts suppliers who may not be as
well schooled in writing drivers or as good about maintaining and updating
their drivers, one of the single greatest causes of problems on a PC, they
have nonetheless, used these cost benefits to lower the price and that has
turned the PC into a mass market item and frankly, the PC is too complex for
that. And, that exacerbates the problem, making user error a major cause of
problems as well.
In addition, there are all sorts of applications that can help the unwary
user get into a lot of trouble, all sorts of utilities, registry cleaners,
utilities that modify files or make modifications to the setup, all of which
are things over which Microsoft has no control and would be virtually
impossible for them to anticipate and, as such, write a useful response.
Hence, we have things such as System Restore which is sort of a catch all
but basically is meant to restore system settings and the registry, a repair
install, something the user only has if they have a retail CD or an OEM that
is equivalent and identical to a retail CD and the recovery console which is
not only too complicated for most users but often requires access to help
files and explanations that can only be had if the system is booted...in
other words, useless if they can't boot, yet, that is the primary reason for
its existence. That one, Microsoft can control and I expect it will improve
in future iterations of Windows.
I agree almost totally with what you see as problems and certainly see the
value of the types of responses you have outlined, some of which can be
implemented. Unfortunately, I think you and many others would still find
the system woefully lacking because of all the variables that cannot be
anticipated.
You don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car. Unfortunately, we have not
quite gotten to the point where you truly need no computer knowledge in
order to operate a PC. A user may start out that way but, eventually, the
very nature of the system, updates, upgrades, etc. will eventually catch up
with them.
--
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol.
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/communities/mvp.aspx
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org:
http://www.dts-l.org/
(